[Are convective treatments equivalent to the traditional ones? The Hemo Study and beyond (review)]

Abstract

Dialysis treatments have allowed 'terminal patients' to live for years and years. However, life expectancy and quality are still consistently reduced in renal dialysis patients. Consequently, all efforts to device alternative treatments to the conventional ones are highly justified. Recently, the Hemo Study showed that neither the use of high flux membranes, nor the increase of the dialysis dose above the conventional, were capable to reduce significantly patient's mortality and morbidity, although 8% reduction of the risk of death was seen in patients treated with high flux vs. patients treated with low-flux dialysis. A relevant question is if convective treatments may offer an overprotection from morbidity and mortality, in comparison with low flux and high flux treatments. Data from the Registro Lombardo di Nefrologia e Trapianto published in 2000 showed a trend toward a better survival (RR= 90) and a significantly better protection from tunnel carpal syndrome (RR= 0.58; p= 0.03) in patients treated with convective treatments (hemofiltration and/or hemodiafiltration) vs. patients treated with diffusive dialysis. Except than a better cardiovascular stability observed on hemofiltration and an higher beta2-microglobuline clearance given by online hemofiltration and hemodiafiltration, evident clinical benefits of convective treatments, over the conventional high flux treatments, are not yet clearly demonstrated. Notwithstanding that, online convective treatments, that are performed with high flux compatible membranes and high technology machines, producing high quality water, offer at the moment the best bases for the improvement of clinical results of dialysis, especially in some category of patients.